Full of Win
Apr 27, 08:44 AM
It doesn't keep a log of the "location" but which WiFi spots you have been on. Also, the database is not easily accessible. But really, don't complain if you enabled Location Services...
1. Keeping a logic identifiable towers and hot spots is, by proxy, keeping a log of my whereabouts.
2. This tag and track was done with location services OFF, per the WSJ.
1. Keeping a logic identifiable towers and hot spots is, by proxy, keeping a log of my whereabouts.
2. This tag and track was done with location services OFF, per the WSJ.
JMax1
Nov 28, 06:43 PM
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 12:44 PM
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.
Only time will tell. :)
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.
Only time will tell. :)
Machead III
Sep 19, 11:52 AM
lolol did you see Steve? He invented MacTop. new laptoP.
rofl. it is g5
rofl. it is g5
ergle2
Sep 13, 03:02 PM
You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
kcmac
Apr 27, 10:09 AM
I think that a lot of people forget that the first iPhone did not have GPS. It helped you find where you were by locating Wi-Fi hotspots and triangulating cell towers. Sometimes it would get you pretty close to where you were but sometimes the results could be fairly maddening. We always referred to this as fake GPS back then.
Now with the combination of real GPS and these other two methods, it is a very accurate system. And fast. I believe Apples description and only hope that the software update does not reduce speed or accuracy of what I have now come to expect.
Now with the combination of real GPS and these other two methods, it is a very accurate system. And fast. I believe Apples description and only hope that the software update does not reduce speed or accuracy of what I have now come to expect.
LordJohnWhorfin
Nov 28, 06:57 PM
If Apple pays Universal to compensate it for their losses due to iPod users being pirates, I will make sure I only procure pirate copies of Universal music and movies, since Universal has already been compensated. No need for them to get paid twice.
Yvan256
Apr 10, 12:02 PM
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...
At least the one on their website looks fine (yet still ugly), the one on MacRumors looks resized and the pixels got messed up... :confused:
At least the one on their website looks fine (yet still ugly), the one on MacRumors looks resized and the pixels got messed up... :confused:
Dr Kevorkian94
Apr 25, 01:48 PM
i love my country we sue everybody! some people are just idiots, they odiously think they can win or they wouldn't spend the legal fees. like others have said android does the same thing but then sends the info to google. and from what i heard its not your actual location just the coordinates of the cell tower you are connected to. i wonder if you turn location services off it will still do that, because there might be some terms and condition someone didn't read lol. but this is a little out of control the situation is generalized to the point where it is being betray like they are tracking you by GPS at every second. cant wait to see how this turns out.
NAG
Mar 31, 04:17 PM
I look ace in a Trilby.
You'd best stop then old fella (yea, I can play forum clich�d response 101 as well, /tips-hat)
Well at least you are an honest troll. Can't say that about everyone who starts attacking groups of people over their OS choice. *shrug*
You'd best stop then old fella (yea, I can play forum clich�d response 101 as well, /tips-hat)
Well at least you are an honest troll. Can't say that about everyone who starts attacking groups of people over their OS choice. *shrug*
THX1139
Aug 21, 02:09 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.
iindigo
Mar 26, 07:35 AM
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Lion offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
ergle2
Sep 19, 10:43 PM
why shouldnt it?
Ah, a mature, intelligent, well reasoned reply.
Ah, a mature, intelligent, well reasoned reply.
dongmin
Sep 19, 10:02 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
mlmathews
Apr 11, 11:25 AM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
boncellis
Jul 27, 04:54 PM
Dan=='s mockup is something that I had considered before, I remember talking about it with Yvan 256 at some point as something like "the return of the Cube." I think it's a pretty good design, the guts of the Mini are so packed as it is, an expanded case would allow for a substantial upgrade in components, including the oft clamored for dedicated GPU.
Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==? ;)
Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==? ;)
Multimedia
Aug 17, 11:43 AM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?The 2GHz Mac Pro is 25% slower while the price is only 8.75% lower when you also lower the order $90 by making the HD a 160 instead of the 250 stock. 300GB SATA/300 drives are only $80 now. So I think it isn't really worth ordering the 2GHz model for that much less power for that little less money. For most of Final Cut Pro work you will not need the fancy video card. Motion is tne only thing that ATI card will help with. If you won't be using Motion a lot, the stock Mac Pro card will be fine.
The 3GHz model is just the opposite - 12.78% more power for 33% more money. Time is money has to be the reason for ordering the 3GHz model.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?The 2GHz Mac Pro is 25% slower while the price is only 8.75% lower when you also lower the order $90 by making the HD a 160 instead of the 250 stock. 300GB SATA/300 drives are only $80 now. So I think it isn't really worth ordering the 2GHz model for that much less power for that little less money. For most of Final Cut Pro work you will not need the fancy video card. Motion is tne only thing that ATI card will help with. If you won't be using Motion a lot, the stock Mac Pro card will be fine.
The 3GHz model is just the opposite - 12.78% more power for 33% more money. Time is money has to be the reason for ordering the 3GHz model.
Yannick
Sep 19, 04:33 AM
An update isn't going to make me go out and by a macbook or macbook pro. I'm waiting for leopard.
This is quite about how I feel. Waiting for Leopard and the following MacBook Pro revision, meaning waiting summer 2007. Then I would try to sell my PB G4 and buy a MacBook Pro. But I guess that if the MacBook Pro would get a very good update in the next weeks, I could be tempted for Christmas� :D
This is quite about how I feel. Waiting for Leopard and the following MacBook Pro revision, meaning waiting summer 2007. Then I would try to sell my PB G4 and buy a MacBook Pro. But I guess that if the MacBook Pro would get a very good update in the next weeks, I could be tempted for Christmas� :D
Hastings101
Apr 6, 03:29 PM
But hey, haven't you heard, Honeycomb is a real tablet OS. (Whatever the heck that means.)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
umichfan
Jun 12, 02:09 PM
So if Im getting this right....I bring my 3GS to Radio Shack on the 15th to preorder the iphone 4 and then I have to turn in my old phone in order to get the buy back gift card? But then I would be without a phone for over a week? My local Radio Shack said I could get $256 for my 3gs. But if I read right that price could go down the closer it gets to the ip4 launch?
Thanks
Thanks
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 08:38 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
The riduculous speculation is certainly getting out of control! A quad core iMac... I don't think so! Not for a long while. 8 Cores (ie dual-quads) will only become available in the top-end of the MacPro (assuming the MacPro does indeed go with the Xeon CPU), and the top-end XServes.
If you want wild speculation, here goes....
Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.
Any further speculation is just farcical! :eek:
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
The riduculous speculation is certainly getting out of control! A quad core iMac... I don't think so! Not for a long while. 8 Cores (ie dual-quads) will only become available in the top-end of the MacPro (assuming the MacPro does indeed go with the Xeon CPU), and the top-end XServes.
If you want wild speculation, here goes....
Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.
Any further speculation is just farcical! :eek:
TheQuestion
Mar 26, 12:22 AM
Can't believe it's anywhere near GM time. Way too many bugs and inconsistencies in behavior. New networking tools in Server have to be implemented now that SMB is being canned - that's not a minor addition. Calling it a release candidate is a stretch, but calling it GM is just plain crazy.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 11:30 AM
The US GSM carriers suck. T-Mobile has great customer service, but their coverage stinks. Cingular has great coverage, but they have BY FAR the worst customer service.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
Plus EVDO beats the pants off of EDGE. And Verizon + Sprint + Amp'd + US Cellular + a bunch of other, smaller CDMA carriers account for over 60million potential customers in the US. If they only do a GSM version of the phone, it'll be a big mistake.
ugp
Jun 9, 10:10 PM
I am doing my pre-order without even walking into the Store. The perks of knowing the Manager. He is going to take care of everything for me because I know he wants that SPIFF lol.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
For any of your Radio Shack employees does your store plan on opening at 6AM? My friend said for the Evo launch they opened just for Evo customers at 6AM and he doesn't see any reason they would not do this for the iPhone 4 as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment